To regain widespread support for the animal rights movement by rethinking its approach.

2005.09.04

New Blog

I have decided to create an additional blog which focuses on animal-free fashion and lifestyle. This blog will feature more pictures, shorter quips, and will focus on positive, stylish alternatives. It is called "Prevoir"

However, if you're interested in rethinking the animal rights movement, and enjoy philosophical debate, please keep reading here. We will discuss new directions for the movement, explore alternative propaganda techniques, and analyze the issues from a philosophical and psychological perspective.

Comments

I believe your blog is wonderful. It truly is a honorable cause to take up for those who are truly the most vulnerable. It also helps those of us who do not give much thought to consumer goods which are produced at the expense of the terrible suffering of animals. I commend you for raising important and thought-provoking issues about animal rights and modern society. I fear, however, that modern life as we know it and animal rights, as they have been generally set forth, are probably inconsistent concepts.

A few questions/comments I thought I’d throw out. I am somewhat unfamiliar with the animal rights movement, so please forgive my general lack of knowledge

1. I have witnessed the sad pictures of those pets that have been rendered homeless in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I know that there are a lot of wonderful groups working in the gulf states to try and reunite the homeless animals with their human owners. One TV commentator mentioned the national arm of the SPCA as the group to which donations might be given. Can anyone recommend other animal rights groups who are working on behalf of the displaced pets in the hurricane stricken areas and to which donations might be given?

2. Is there a website that keeps tabs on local and state legislators as it relates to their legislative efforts/voting records with respect to the rights of animals generally?

3. I loved the translation error quotation that was posted - "Fur coats made for the ladies from their own skin."

4. Perusing Hungry Hyaena’s/Christopher’s (I am not sure which is which) comments and obvious thought in the areas of animals rights, biodiversity, the tenuousness of the ecosystem (I’m not sure I buy this concept, even though we hear such much about it), it’s difficult to believe that he would even be tempted to hunt, notwithstanding his comments about the interrelatedness of all things such that bullet, the rifle, the deer, and the shooter are all one.

5. On the subject of the interrelatedness of all things, and assuming for purposes of argument that everything (even stones) has consciousness, is it less moral to eat a plant or fish than kill (humanely or inhumanely) an animal for food because the animal would appear to have “more consciousness”?

6. On the subject of “respectful hunting” to which Hungry Hyaena alluded, my first thought was the scene (in the movie, Dances With Wolves) of stripped buffalo carcases lying on the prairie killed by white men who only wanted the buffaloes for their hides and tongues. The Sioux, “respectful hunters” and a people whose lives depended upon the buffalo herds, were deeply saddened and mystified by such senseless slaughter. Was the Sioux’s killing of the buffalo any more wrong than the white man’s slaughter of the buffalo? I mean really – the buffalo suffered an equally painful death, whether by the white man’s rifle or the Sioux’s arrows. Clearly, the obvious difference (other than intent) between the Sioux and white fur traders was that the Sioux respected the buffalo, needed the buffalo to live, and used the entire buffalo. In practical terms of the suffering of the animal, however, was there any difference between the manner of killing between the Sioux and that of the white man? Of course, the Sioux did not decimate the species, but the individual pain felt by the buffalo would be equal in both cases.

7. I fancy of myself an animal lover (even though I tend to think of hamburger as hamburger and leather as leather), but do tend to favor the more beautiful animals - domestic pets, the big cats, horses, bears, etc. Is it such a terrible tragedy that one species should become extinct? Take the Komodo dragon for instance. Surely, a more odious creature does not walk the earth. The entire island which these creatures inhabit render the island uninhabitable for humans, except on the coastline. A few coastline residents have even awoken to find these animals under their front porches. I have also heard that tour organizers lead groups to Indonesia and the travelers witness The Komodo dragons feeding on live goats offered up by the accompanying wildlife expert. What would happen if the Komodo dragon were to become extinct? I suspect ecosystem would re-adjust (if that is the proper terminology).

8. I wonder if farmers ever give their animals names? Once one gives an animal a name, it would seem to be difficult to slaughter it.

Interesting comments. While I have as hard a time accepting your "a hamburger is a hamburger and leather is leather" perspectives as you do my own naturalist/environmentalist/hunter approach, I'm always eager to hear myriad perspectives.

I also respect your skepticism about the "tenuousness of ecosystems," but only in terms of a geologic timeline. Sure, removing the Komodo Dragon probably won't affect humanity all that much - barring a few compounds made from dragon saliva and much scientific research (dragon venom is so unique that many researchers believe it can be used in the treatment of many human ailments). The loss of the dragon would only hurt the tourism industry of southeastern Indonesia and take away some of the diet of the local people, neither of which are particularly worrisome scenarios, at least for us westerners. However, each piece of the puzzle is no less vital than the next. Remove the dragon and you remove a keystone predator in it's range. Other creatures will step up to fill the void. Such is the stuff of evolution. On the geologic timeline, no sweat, but in the short term, changes such as these can result in terrible shifts for localized ecosystems, resulting in a localized extinction of many species. As a proponent of biodiversity, both for scientific and spiritual reasons, I find such a situation more than unfortunate.

As far as farmers are concerned, yes, many do name their animals. I grew up in a farming community. Most farmers named their cows or pigs with full knowledge that they would one day kill them. It ain't altogether easy, and this sort of thing is rare nowadays, as industrialized agriculture has replaced the idea of the local pig farmer. No names, only plastic ear tags and grinding gears.

Your question #5 gets to the root of the imponderable and their exists no satisfying answer, hence the question's koan-like status. We all embrace some level of hypocrisy. The question is, how much are we comfortable with.

>>Your question #5 gets to the root of the imponderable and their exists no satisfying answer, hence the question's koan-like status. We all embrace some level of hypocrisy. The question is, how much are we comfortable with.<<

True, indeed. Perhaps an answer is to want nothing. I have heard of monks of centuries past who have survived for long periods of time, eating only one grape per day. But I’m getting off topic, talking about “living” water and “living” bread. Your post (and other posts) is exceedingly well written and demonstrates an unusual depth of thought. Do you write about similar or other topics somewhere else on the Internet? I am certain that many on this site would welcome your continuing thoughts here.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm a little reluctant to think of myself as a good writer, but compliments are always nice. ;)

Hungry Hyaena has posts about conservation, ecology, and art, as well as general ramblings. I'm a painter, though, and during those periods when the studio practice is flourishing, the posts become infrequent.